Sex Differences in Muscle Metaboreflex Activation after Static Handgrip Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Larger blood pressure (BP) responses to relative-intensity static exercise in men versus women are thought to involve altered muscle metaboreflex activation, but whether this is because of an intrinsic sex difference in metabolite production or differences in muscle strength and absolute load is unknown. METHODS: Continuous BP and heart rate were recorded in 200 healthy young men and women (women: n = 109) during 2 min of static handgrip exercise at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), followed by 2 min of postexercise circulatory occlusion (PECO). Muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) was recorded in a subset of participants (n = 39; women, n = 21), permitting calculation of signal-averaged resting sympathetic transduction (MSNA-diastolic BP). Sex differences were examined with and without statistical adjustment for MVC. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of BP responses. RESULTS: Men had larger systolic BP responses (interactions, P < 0.0001) to static handgrip exercise (24 ± 10 vs 17 ± 9 mm Hg [mean ± SD], P < 0.0001) and PECO (20 ± 11 vs 16 ± 9 mm Hg, P < 0.0001). Adjustment for MVC abolished these sex differences in BP (interactions, P > 0.7). In the subset with MSNA, neither burst frequency or incidence responses to static handgrip exercise or PECO differed between men and women (interactions, P > 0.2). Resting sympathetic transduction was also similar (P = 0.8). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that MVC or the change in MSNA, were predictors of BP responses to static handgrip, but only MVC was associated with BP responses during PECO. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in absolute contraction load contribute to differences in BP responses during muscle metaboreflex isolation using PECO. These data do not support an intrinsic effect of sex as being responsible for exercise BP differences between men and women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".